AC : STRENGTHSQUEST FOR ENGINEERS

AC 2012-3433: STRENGTHSQUEST FOR ENGINEERS Dr. Shelley Lorimer P.Eng., Grant MacEwan University Shelley Lorimer, P.Eng., is the Chairperson of the Bachelor s of Science in Engineering Transfer program (BSEN) at Grant MacEwan University in Edmonton, Alberta. She teaches undergraduate courses in statics and dynamics, as well as courses in engineering professionalism. She is currently participating in a research project with Alberta Innovates Technology Futures in the oil sands and hydrocarbon recovery group doing reservoir simulation of enhanced oil recovery processes. She has a Ph.D. in numerical modeling from the University of Alberta, also in Edmonton. Elsie Elford, Grant MacEwan University Elsie Elford joined MacEwan as a full-time instructor in 1992. Her leadership ability was immediately evident as, in addition to teaching, she took on chairing and leading a number of college initiatives and committees. These included Chair of the Educational Leadership Institute (ELI), the Academic Vision Steering Committee, Academic Council, and Faculty Roles and Responsibilities. In 2000, MacEwan students presented her with the Student Champion Award, in recognition of exemplary service, support, and advocacy. In 2005, she received the International Exemplary Leader Award from the Chair Academy, a U.S.-based educational leadership institution. Since then, she has expanded her Chair Academy work to become a facilitator for the Leadership program, providing a lead role in MacEwan s strengths-based leadership initiative. In 2009, she was named one of Alberta s 50 Most Influential by Venture Magazine. In her role as Dean, she works with a dedicated team to lead MacEwan as an institution that offers a variety of degrees, diplomas, and certificates. Prior to her career in education, Elford practiced law for 10 years, and holds both a B.A. and an L.L.B. from the University of Alberta. She stays connected to the profession through membership in the Law Society of Alberta and the Canadian Bar Association. Elford sits on the Board of Directors of Junior Achievement (JA) of Northern Alberta and Northwest Territories and is the Vice Chair of the Edmonton Chapter of the International Women s Forum. http://macewan.ca/wcm/schoolsfaculties/business/officeofthedean/index.htm c American Society for Engineering Education, 2012

StrengthsQuest for Engineers ABSTRACT This research developed as a result of a leadership course presented by the Chair Academy, a U.S. based leadership organization, which introduced Gallup s online strengths assessment tool, Clifton StrengthsFinder (StrengthsFinder), as a valuable instrument in the development of educational leadership. The Gallup organization has a considerable body of literature on strengths and the use of strengths as a mechanism for enhancing self understanding and improving team performance. It was clear from the outset of this course that this process might be useful as an educational tool (for the students) and as a research tool (engineering educational research) in analyzing the first-year engineering educational experience. As a result, StrengthsFinder was introduced in our first-year program as a part of the curriculum in a course entitled An Introduction to the Engineering Profession. This initiative has evolved into an ongoing longitudinal study examining the StrengthsFinder talent themes of first-year engineering students, to determine whether or not each engineering group possesses a unique talent theme signature. The results presented in this study are for two similarly sized student groups and span a three year period. A question that remains unanswered from the analysis of the data is whether or not this information can quantitatively improve the teaching practices of engineering instructors. The collection of data and the use of this assessment tool as a part of the engineering curriculum have already qualitatively affected the educational process of the students that were involved to date. Supporters of positive psychology interventions suggest that the use of this type of assessment tool to engage engineering students, by its own nature, improves their engineering education. This article highlights the process that was required to use the StrengthsFinder online assessment both as a part of the curriculum and as a research tool to study the StrengthsFinder signature themes of first-year engineering students (~200 students). Results are presented showing the engineering students signature themes and comparing them to academic achievement. The results were analyzed in light of strengths based research. The article presents a preliminary literature survey which establishes a link between Gallup s strength based research and the body of literature on personality assessments of engineering students. In particular, there seems to be a connection between the thirty-four four Gallup signature themes, and the sixteen Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) personality types. The results that have been obtained to date show a strengths signature or a dominant set of talent themes typical for the engineering student groups considered in this study. The same type of phenomenon was observed in the literature, when personality type assessments of engineering students were examined. In particular, a common signature for engineering students using MBTI typing was (E/I)STJ. In this study, for both groups, a dominant talent theme competition emerged in the top five signature themes of ~ 30% of each of the two groups. Furthermore, eight key talent themes were common in the top ten talent themes for both groups: achiever, adaptability, analytical, competition, deliberative, futuristic, learner and restorative. These themes may be linked to the MBTI typing. Based on this study, it would seem that the problem solving based curriculum is well suited to the common StrengthsFinder themes of first-year engineering students.

I. INTRODUCTION This project and the ensuing research precipitated through the experience of the Advanced Leadership Academy 1 and were initiated to examine the applicability of the Gallup s StrengthsQuest process to career development of first-year engineering students. * Preliminary results of the research published by Lorimer and Elford 2 identified a unique talent theme signature for first-year engineering students. As a result of these findings, the research in this area has continued and become an ongoing initiative providing data for a longitudinal study. This article further explores the StrengthsFinder signature themes for two independent consecutive groups of first-year engineering students at one university. Through the analysis of this data, the authors have established a connection between these results and other results that have been obtained using Myers-Brigg s type Indicator (MBTI) for engineering students at universities in both the United States (U.S.) and Canada. II. BACKGROUND There has been a substantial amount of literature devoted to personality assessments of engineering students. 3-14 Scott et al. 3 and Yokomoto and Ware 4 have provided summaries of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator (MBTI) model, which contributed to the literature that has been devoted to the understanding of the role of personality/temperament in engineering education. Both articles provide a substantive treatment of the research that has been done to date, as well as summative discussions of the theory itself. In particular, they have provided the foundation for the analysis considered in this study, and the comparisons used herein. Much of the research in this area seeks to quantify a connection amongst personality types, learning styles and academic success in engineering. There has been less attention given in the literature to the use of the Clifton StrengthsFinder (StrengthsFinder) in the assessment of engineering students. Clifton StrengthsFinder is an online talent assessment tool that has been used in an educational setting to assess talents/potential strengths of individuals. The StrengthsQuest process is a Gallup initiative designed to use the information gathered using the StrengthsFinder to develop leadership skills. There is a wealth of data available on the Gallup website 15 and in other Gallup publications about the research undertaken in developing the Clifton s StrengthsFinder profiles. 16, 17 In many ways StrengthsFinder themes are similar to the Myers-Briggs typing, in that they share a commonality in language and keywords. The MBTI dichotomies are sometimes referred to as preferences, and might be interpreted as behavioral attributes. StrengthsFinder is similar to MBTI in that it typifies individuals according to their preferences, but different in that these traits are seen as latent with a capacity to be developed into strengths. It is possible that the StrengthsFinder assessment tool could be used similarly to MBTI in an attempt to typify engineering students, and that the data and results from previous MBTI studies might be used to enhance the understanding of the StrengthsFinder theory. * The StrengthsQuest process is the language and body of literature associated with the StrengthsFinder assessment tool. The Clifton StrengthsFinder is the tool itself.

More recently, Jackson & Magun-Jackson 18 have qualitatively used the StrengthsFinder survey in an introductory engineering management course. The article describing their research provides an excellent summary and interpretation of the StrengthsFinder themes. The authors concluded that classroom experiences with the StrengthsFinder profiling were very valuable and attributed the success of this initiative to that fact that the use of StrengthsFinder profiling is inherently a positive intervention, with a focus on strengths of individuals rather than weaknesses. No quantitative results, however, were presented. A further exploration of the literature, devoted to the study of positive psychology, demonstrates the effect that positive interventions can have on the well-being of people. Seligman and Steen 19 conducted a study that concluded that positive interventions can increase an individual s happiness, which in turn could translate to individuals (students) becoming more engaged and more successful. Although this study was not directly applied to engineering students, per se, the conclusions can quite easily be extended to the use of the StrengthsFinder assessment tool, which itself would be considered to be a positive intervention. The underlying premise of the StrengthsQuest process is to engage students in self discovery of their positive attributes (talents) so that these attributes could be developed into strengths. A deeper examination of the literature explores the connection between typification of engineering students and success and retention. Veenstra et al. 20 have indicated that it is necessary to understand the attributes of an engineer in order create an educational process that would prepare engineering students for careers in engineering. It is clear from this article that the authors support the contention that engineers have definable attributes which include: strong analytical skills, ingenuity, thinking (creativity), communication skills, leadership skills, adaptability, and lifelong learning (learners) amongst others. Veenstra et al. 20 also speak about the competitive behavior expectations of the engineering career as well as the competitive nature of the engineering curriculum. These attributes are consistent with the behaviors associated with the personality types of engineering students identified using MBTI, as well as supporting the results obtained in this study using the Clifton s StrengthsFinder. Based on the StrengthsFinder profile discovered in this study, one would expect that a large percentage of engineering students have innate talents that can be further developed into these specific engineering attributes. It may well be that the educational process should be developed to foster the growth of these talents and nurture them into strengths. Scott et al. 3 have pointed out certain trends in the typification of engineering students using MBTI typing. In particular, based on the information gathered in the databases, they pointed out that engineering students were dominated by thinking/judging types. They presented data showing double-digit participation for the MBTI types ESTJ and ISTJ, which arose in three separate databases. These databases, which were derived from the literature cited in their paper, came from a substantial number of longitudinal studies conducted in both the U.S. and Canada. Many of the articles referred to background summary of this article address the uniqueness of the engineering students as a cohesive group. It is this uniqueness that is being explored using the StrengthsFinder assessment tool. This article examines the connection between MBTI typing and StrengthsFinder signature themes, presents data showing a possible typification for first-year engineering students using the

StrengthsFinder assessment and provides a positive psychology perspective on the use of this assessment instrument in the first-year engineering curriculum. The research was focused on a qualitative understanding of the StrengthsFinder signature themes of first-year engineering students, and whether or not this understanding could be used in any practical way. III. DATA COLLECTION The logistics of the research project were more challenging than initially expected. Before the online survey could be conducted, university policy 21 necessitated that a research ethics proposal had to be written and approved. Each of the students had to sign a consent form to release the survey results for use in this research study. Once this was complete, the process of distributing the access codes for the online survey was done through a first-year engineering course: An Introduction to the Engineering Profession. This course is well suited to the use of the StrengthsFinder tool since both the course and the assessment tool can easily be linked to career development, which is an inherent part of engineering professional development. Once the access codes were distributed, the students completed the online StrengthsFinder assessment with little difficulty. There were a few hiccups in the process as expected with such a large group: some students lost their codes, while others had small technical difficulties with their passwords and difficulty interpreting the instructions for completion of the survey. Generally speaking, once the process was completed, analysis of the data was done quite easily using excel spreadsheets. Two independent groups of first-year engineering students provided the data for this study. The first group (168 students) took the StrengthsFinder online assessment in fall 2009, while the second group (149 students) completed the assessments in fall 2010. It is possible that some of the students that initially took the survey may have dropped out of the program at the end of winter term and may not be representative of a typical engineering student. In each of the two student groups, there were almost 200 students enrolled in the engineering program at the beginning of the term, yet the number that participated in the survey was substantially lower. This is due to a fairly high attrition rate in the engineering transfer program at our institution. The attrition rate in the first-year engineering program at this institution is ~50%. Regardless of this, this research was extremely well received by the students, in an extremely positive way. IV. a) SUMMARY OF THE METHODOLOGIES It is quite pertinent at this stage to give a brief summary of the MBTI indicator types, and the StrengthsFinder talents/themes and establish a connection between these two assessment instruments. The MBTI is based on four dichotomies: E (Extroversion) / I (Introversion) S (Sensing) / N (Intuition) T (Thinking) / F (Feeling) J (Judgment) / P (Perception)

The combination of these four dichotomies gives rise to sixteen definitive personality types. The MBTI personality types and their distribution in the U.S. population are summarized in Table 4A (Appendix). In more simplistic terms, the MBTI can also be examined in light of four temperaments, which have been described in some detail by Keirsey and Bates. 22 Keirsey and Bates 22 linked the four temperaments of Hippocrates, to four behavior descriptions that align with MBTI theory. These descriptions are identified using the MBTI dichotomies using the names suggested by Keirsey that describe these temperaments: SP (Artisans), SJ (Guardians), NT (Rationals), and NF (Idealists). Using the data collected by Scott et al. one would conclude that 65-70% of the engineering students (~7000 students), in the studies considered, would have temperaments of SJ or NT. Keirsey s estimate for the occurrence of these temperaments in the general population, {SP (~38%), SJ (~38%), NT (~12%) NF (12%)}, indicates that only 50% of the general population would be described in this way. This literature supports the contention that the engineering group is distinct from the general population, with a higher percentage of SJ and NT temperaments. Statistics provided in Table 4A for MBTI are consistent with these numbers, although the percentages are slightly different. Yokomoto and Ware 4 have attached descriptors to the four MBTI dichotomies as follows: Extroverts sociable, external, interacting Introverts territorial, internal, intensive Sensing perceiving, past wisdom, gathering information, sensible, realistic Intuition imaginative, speculative, ingenious, inspiration, hunches Thinking evaluating, judging, logical, objective Feeling subjective, empathetic, humane, persuasive, appreciative, harmony, positive Judgment planned, scheduled, working steadily, closure Perception open-ended, flexible, adaptable These descriptors are closely associated with the descriptors used to define the StrengthsFinder themes. It will be shown later that these descriptors can be used to examine the relationship between MBTI and StrengthsFinder. Jackson and Magun-Jackson 18 have also provided an excellent summative analysis of the strengths/themes of the StrengthsFinder assessment instrument using the information provided by Gallup. They further categorized the thirty-four themes into four general categories, which align with the number of temperaments proposed by Keirsey. Even more fascinating is the discovery that, throughout the course of history, there have been numerous attempts to classify people according to their traits, which have given rise to four distinct categories. Each classification is unique unto itself, yet there are similarities amongst them in the language that they use. The commonality would be the use of the terminology: traits, attitudes, temperaments, spirits, views, styles and so on. It is not surprising, then, to note that the categorizations for StrengthsFinder themes vary between researchers. Table 1A (Appendix) shows the categorization given by Jackson and The detailed description of the thirty-four StrengthsFinder themes can be found at www.strengthsquest.com.

Magun-Jackson. 18 Table 2A (Appendix) shows the categorization given by Buckingham. 16 Table 3A (Appendix) shows yet a third categorization of the StrengthsFinder themes. In all cases the themes have been clustered into four domains. A careful comparison of the first two tables shows small differences in classification, which are highlighted in red. The names of the four domains are similar, but the distributions of the themes into the different categories vary. For this analysis, the authors have chosen the categorization proposed by Rath and Conchie 24 to analyze the data. In all of the tables in this article, the top eight common StrengthsFinder themes for the engineering students sampled in this study have been highlighted in yellow (lightly shaded). It is clear that there are slight differences between Table 1A and 2A, but more significant differences exist between Table 3A and the first two. It is interesting to note that both the MBTI and the StrengthsFinder research have attempted to cluster the themes/types into categories. In particular, the placement of positivity, harmony, and the use of the word fairness in place of consistency delineate the differences in the first two categorizations. Further examination of the two assessment tools (StrengthsFinder and MBTI), along with the language and descriptors summarized in the two tables, has led the authors of this paper to propose a connection between StrengthsFinder themes and MBTI typing. IV. b) COMPARISON OF METHODOLOGIES It is possible, then, that one might consider associations between the MBTI preferences and the StrengthsFinder themes as follows in Table 1. The descriptors used by Yokomoto and Ware 4 as well as the engineering attributes provided by Veenstra et al. 20 were used to create this mapping of the MBTI dichotomies to the StrengthsFinder themes. It should be noted that there will not be a completely one to one mapping since there are thirtyfour themes and only eight MBTI dichotomies. This proposed mapping will be used later to compare the StrengthsFinder data for this research to the data presented by other researchers using MBTI. It is with this cross-linking in mind that the analysis of this data was conducted, looking for patterns and similarities to identify some sort of profile or signature for the engineering students. Table 1 Cross Comparison of MBTI Typing with StrengthsFinder Themes MBTI Types StrengthsFinder Themes Extroverts Command, Communication, Connectedness, Inclusiveness, Relator, Woo Introverts Deliberative, Individualization, Maximizer, Significance Sensing Restorative, Context, Competition, Achiever Intuition Activator, Futuristic, Ideation, Input Thinking Analytical, Consistency, Intellection, Learner, Strategic Feeling Belief, Empathy, Harmony, Positivity Judgment Arranger, Consistency (Fairness), Discipline, Responsibility Perception Adaptability, Developer, Focus, Self-Assurance Further exploration of the connections between MBTI, StrengthsFinder, and Keirsey s four temperaments, as they relate to MBTI typing, leads to the following connection between the four

leadership domains and the four MBTI temperaments. Table 2 shows a proposed cross linking between Keirsey s four temperaments and the leadership domains proposed by Rath and Conchie. 24 This table will be used later to examine the relationships between MBTI and StrengthsFinder. Executing (SJ) Table 2 Four Temperaments and Four Leadership Domains Influencing Relationship Building Strategic Thinking (SP) (NF) (NT) V. RESULTS Each participant in the StrengthsFinder assessment received a report that lists their top five themes. The frequencies of the top five StrengthsFinder talent/themes for the two engineering student groups considered in this longitudinal study are provided in Table 3, alongside a comparative Gallup baseline data set. The baseline data set for StrengthsFinder was taken from Gallup s StrengthsQuest website, which is updated on a monthly basis. The Gallup data consists of the frequencies of the top five talents/themes for all people that have taken StrengthsFinder assessments through the StrengthsQuest process to date. The frequencies of these top five StrengthsFinder themes for each student, in each of the two groups were calculated and sorted in descending order for comparison. Unlike MBTI, which has only sixteen personality types, the permutations and combinations of the top five themes for thirty-four different StrengthsFinder themes for each student were too numerous to attempt to quantify. However, in each case, percentages of the total group were provided to normalize the frequency histograms to the size of the group. This facilitated a semi-quantitative comparison with research done using MBTI and amongst the results obtained for the engineering student groups and the Gallup baseline. Most of the data reported in the literature is given as percentages of the total group. However, because there are sixteen definitive types using MBTI, the percentages of the group are more meaningful since the total percentages will add to 100%. For the StrengthsFinder themes, because there are five themes for each student, the analysis of the data in terms of percentage is not as meaningful, but does lend itself to the to the semiquantitative analysis proposed in this section. The semi-quantitative information is provided through the frequency analysis, while the qualitative assessment is provided through the comparisons of the commonalities of the themes between groups. The StrengthsFinder signature of the students considered is based largely on these qualitative comparisons. The StrengthsFinder themes for the ten highest frequencies (of the top five themes) for each student group are provided as follows: Group 1 Competition, Achiever, Adaptability, Analytical, Restorative Learner, Futuristic, Harmony, Empathy, Deliberative

Table 3 - Frequencies of StrengthsFinder Top Five Talents/Themes Gallup Statistics # People % 2010 Group 2 # % 2009 Group 1 # % Achiever 307200 27 Adaptability 43 29 Competition 55 33 Adaptability 290209 26 Competition 42 28 Achiever 53 32 Responsibility 276448 25 Analytical 40 27 Adaptability 45 27 Relator 262494 23 Achiever 35 23 Analytical 38 23 Restorative 254203 23 Learner 35 23 Restorative 38 23 Learner 248472 22 Futuristic 33 22 Learner 37 22 Input 231131 21 Restorative 31 21 Futuristic 35 21 Empathy 231010 21 Deliberative 30 20 Harmony 35 21 Strategic 229473 20 Relator 27 18 Empathy 33 20 Positivity 215987 19 Ideation 27 18 Deliberative 31 18 Includer 213340 19 Individualization 27 18 Consistency 31 18 Harmony 211994 19 Strategic 26 17 Strategic 30 18 Developer 200697 18 Consistency 25 17 Individualization 29 17 Belief 178000 16 Maximizer 24 16 Ideation 27 16 Communication 171477 15 Command 23 15 Responsibility 25 15 Woo 164158 15 Empathy 23 15 Focus 23 14 Futuristic 161813 14 Significance 21 14 Includer 21 13 Competition 154490 14 Harmony 21 14 Discipline 20 12 Consistency 149773 13 Input 20 13 Realtor 19 11 Deliberative 128233 11 Responsibility 18 12 Developer 19 11 Individualization 128127 11 Context 18 12 Woo 19 11 Ideation 120333 11 Intellection 17 11 Maximizer 18 11 Connectedness 118485 11 Includer 17 11 Context 18 11 Intellection 113201 10 Focus 15 10 Command 17 10 Context 107550 10 Self-Assurance 14 9 Significance 16 10 Arranger 103568 9 Activator 14 9 Input 16 10 Maximizer 102419 9 Developer 13 9 Intellection 16 10 Activator 101532 9 Positivity 12 8 Positivity 16 10 Focus 88654 8 Discipline 11 7 Communication 16 10 Analytical 86102 8 Communication 11 7 Connectedness 14 8 Discipline 82942 7 Belief 10 7 Arranger 11 7 Command 73914 7 Woo 10 7 Belief 8 5 Significance 61022 5 Connectedness 6 4 Activator 6 4 Self-Assurance 45039 4 Arranger 6 4 Self-Assurance 5 3 TOTAL 1122710 TOTAL 149 TOTAL 168 Top Ten Middle Fourteen Bottom Ten

Group 2 Adaptability, Competition, Analytical, Achiever, Learner Futuristic, Restorative, Deliberative, Relator, Ideation The StrengthsFinder themes for the ten lowest frequencies (of the top five themes) for each student group were as follows: Group 1 Significance, Input, Intellection, Positivity, Communication Connectedness, Arranger, Belief, Activator, Self-Assurance Group 2 Self-Assurance, Activator, Developer, Positivity, Discipline Communication, Belief, Woo, Connectedness, Arranger It is clear from the data that there are definitely common themes shared in both the ten highest theme frequencies (top ten) and ten lowest theme frequencies (bottom ten) for each group. Eight of the themes are common in the top ten frequencies for both groups, and seven themes common in the bottom ten, although the relative order and frequency occurrence for all of the common themes are slightly different. Of the eight common top ten themes competition theme is the one of the highest frequencies in both groups. In both cases ~30% of all respondents who took the online assessment had the competition theme in their top five talents. This is particularly interesting, since the description of the competition theme coincides with the descriptive keywords for engineers, and engineering program admissions which are, typically by their own nature as pointed out earlier in this article, competitive. The common themes in the top ten for both groups are highlighted in yellow (or lightly shaded) in Table 3, while the bottom ten frequencies are highlighted in green(or dark shading). Based on the data obtained in this study the eight common themes that create the definitive signature for these first-year engineering students are: Adaptability, Competition, Analytical, Achiever, Learner, Futuristic, Restorative, and Deliberative. Exploration of the middle fourteen themes (highlighted in red or darkly shaded) also shows some commonalities. Nine of the themes were common in the middle frequency range. A visual comparison of the color schemes of the two student groups to the Gallup baseline, shows that the theme signatures of the two student groups are similar to each other but quite different from the baseline. All three talent profiles share top themes of achiever, adaptability, restorative and learning, which might be expected of people at an academic institution. It is the differences, competition, futuristic and deliberative, which seem to define the engineering student groups. The competition theme has nearly twice the frequency in the engineering groups, compared to the Gallup baseline. Also, the analytical theme which is near the bottom for the baseline data is near the top of the frequency list for the engineering groups: 8% versus (27% and 23%) respectively for the student groups considered.

Further analysis was made by comparing fall term average Grade Point Averages (GPAs) as a function of StrengthsFinder themes for both groups. The average GPAs for each theme were calculated based on the number of students having a given theme in their top five themes. These results are presented in Figure 1. Here, average Fall GPAs are plotted for each StrengthsFinder theme, and sorted in descending order based on Group 1 data. No obvious consistent trends between the two groups were observed from this analysis. Earlier work had shown a trend of slightly higher GPAs associated with thinking themes, but the data obtained for the second group did not confirm these observations. Figures 2 and 3 show the same results now plotted for the top ten theme frequencies and bottom ten theme frequencies based on the order established for Group 1. GPAs are compared for both groups for these themes. There are larger differences between the two groups GPAs for the bottom themes, than for the top themes. One really interesting observation is that the students with the self-assurance theme in their top five StrengthsFinder themes have a consistently high average GPA of 3.0/4.0 for both groups. These themes had comparatively fewer students: six students in one group fourteen in the other group had self-assurance in the in their top five StrengthsFinder themes. The competition, achiever, analytical and futuristic themes also show relatively consistent GPA results between the two groups. These themes are in the characteristic theme signature proposed for engineering student groups considered in this analysis. Although this does not suggest that academic performance is tied to StrengthsFinder themes, it does show some consistency of academic performance for students with these themes between the two groups. Group2-2010 Group 1-2009 Fall Term GPA /4.0 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 Self-Assurance Achiever Futuristic Adaptability Focus Command Learner Significance Discipline Deliberative Restorative Competition Analytical Ideation Strategic Communication Consistency Individualization Intellection Responsibility Relator Includer Connectedness Woo Maximizer Arranger Context Input Harmony Empathy Positivity Activator Developer Belief StrengthsQuest Theme Figure 1 Fall Term Average GPA for each StrengthsFinder theme for Groups 1 & 2

Group2-2010 Group1-2009 Fall GPA /4.0 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 Competition Achiever Adaptability Restorative Analytical Learner Futuristic Harmony Empathy Deliberative Top Ten Themes Figure 2 Fall Term Average GPA for the top ten theme frequencies of Group 1 common StrengthsFinder themes for Groups 1 & 2 Fall GPA /4.0 3.00 2.90 2.80 2.70 2.60 2.50 2.40 2.30 2.20 2.10 2.00 Group 2-2010 Group 1-2009 Significance Communication Intellection Input Positivity Connectedness Arranger Belief Activator Self-Assurance Bottom Ten Themes Figure 3 Fall Term Average GPA for bottom ten theme frequencies of Group 1 common StrengthsFinder themes for Groups 1 & 2

Returning to Table 1, which proposes a cross-linking between MBTI and StrengthsFinder themes, the ISTJ typing of the engineering students is partially confirmed using the StrengthsFinder themes. The eight top common themes for the engineering students considered in this study are highlighted in yellow (or light shading), and a comparison to the MBTI types qualitatively supports IST typing (one theme for I, three themes for S and two themes for T), but not the J typing. Perhaps the cross-linking needs to be further explored by having students take both a StrengthsFinder analysis and an MBTI typing and by directly comparing data from the two assessment instruments. Looking back at Tables 1-3, based on this analysis, the themes with the highest frequencies associated with the engineering students would be classified into the thinking leadership domain. Table 4A (Appendix), shows estimated frequency distributions for the sixteen MBTI personality types for the general population in the U.S. The frequency distributions are shown as both a range, and an average value within that range. Table 4A also shows estimates for the distribution of the Keirsey temperaments found by consolidating the frequency distributions into those four temperaments (SJ, SP, NT, and NF). The data provided in Table 4A indicates that only 10% of the general population would be NT, or thinking type. Table 4 summarizes data presented by Scott et al. 3 for engineering students and illustrates a comparison to the general U.S. population, and Keirsey s estimate of the distribution of the four temperaments also for the U.S. population. It should be noted that there are some differences between estimates provided by Keirsey and general population data provided by the Myers- Briggs Foundation. 26 The data presented in the table for engineering students was based on data provided by Scott et al. 3, with the summary data calculated using a weighted average distribution. The most striking observation is the number of NT temperaments in the engineering students (~32%). There is almost three times the expected number of NT temperaments in the engineering student group than would be predicted using statistics from the general population in the U.S. Conversely, there are substantially fewer SP types for engineering students using the same statistical comparison. This is consistent with the absence of common themes for the engineering student groups that belong to the influencing leadership domain. Table 4 Temperament Distribution comparison Temperaments SJ SP NT NF Engineering students Scott et. al. 3 University Tennessee 34% 20.2% 29.7% 16.1% ASEE 37.4% 15.3% 34.8% 12.6% Canadian 35.1% 20.0% 30.5% 14.4% Weighted Ave Engineering Students 35.9% 17.7% 32.4% 14.0% General U.S. Population 26 46.4% 27.0% 10.4% 16.4% Keirsey s Estimate for the general population 22 38% 38% 12% 12%

These results are extremely interesting and warrant additional investigation into the connection between these two assessment tools and the characteristics of first-year engineering students. Since a link between academic performance and MBTI personality type has been established, and there appears to be a link between MBTI and the StrengthsFinder themes, it is still plausible that academic success is related to the StrengthsFinder themes. A further examination of the data, in more detail, may elucidate the relationships between StrengthsFinder themes and academic success, if they exist. Further study could be also devoted to finding additional ways to develop the students talents into strengths, thereby improving their chances for success in engineering. The key to this exploration will lie in the detailed examination of the common themes and the use of this information in the development of the curriculum strategies. V. DISCUSSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Wherein much of the literature in engineering education seems to be focused on dramatically changing engineering education, it seems that there might not be such a strong need for this initiative. Engineering curricula have been largely focused on problem solving and the development of these skills. Likewise, typification of engineering students seems to be congruent with the type of curriculum that has been developed. If one considers the preferential attributes of engineers and looks at the distribution of these attributes amongst the general population, it might be unreasonable to expect that one can necessarily increase the number of students that succeed in engineering just by dramatically changing engineering education. Perhaps it might be more worthwhile to consider minor enhancements or improvements to the existing engineering pedagogy. In light of recent developments in positive psychology, increasing the self-awareness of first-year engineering students through psychological instruments like MBTI and StrengthsFinder could improve the chances for success while at the same time increasing retention. VI. CONCLUSIONS The literature indicates that there is an interest in the effect of personality type on academic performance for undergraduate engineering students, particularly when this knowledge can be used to improve the educational process. The literature also supports the premise that the engineering students are an identifiable group. In particular, the most common personality type for engineering students based on MBTI is ISTJ, indicating that there is a clear thinking preference in contrast to a feeling preference for this group. The research to date in this area tends to favor the use of the MBTI personality analyses even though there are other similar tools available. Data from two groups of engineering students in this study shows a mildly definitive StrengthsFinder signature for first-year engineering students that is consistent with the MBTI typing. A more detailed analysis of the relationship between these two evaluation tools is necessary to further confirm these observations. It seems clear from the research done in this area that self discovery tools such as StrengthsFinder and MBTI are extremely useful in examining educational needs of engineering students. These results provide additional insight and support of these already developed theories. Based on this study, it seems that the StrengthsFinder instrument might be used as a positive intervention beginning in the first year of the engineering curriculum. In addition, supplemental activities that would challenge the students would

complement the development of the competition, achiever and analytical themes that are common attributes of engineers. BIBLIOGRAPHY 1. Chair Academy. 2009. Available from: http://www.chairacademy.com 2. Lorimer, S.A. and Elford, E., StrengthsQuest for Engineers: Career Paths & Strengths - Is There a Link?, Proceedings of the Annual Chair Academy Conference, Minneapolis, Minnesota, March 2010. 3. Scott T. H., Parsons, R., and Seat, J.E., Use of Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in the University of Tennessee engage Freshman Engineering Program, Proceedings of the 2002 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 2002. 4. Yokomoto, C.F. and Ware, R., Applications of the Myers-Briggs Type Indicator in Engineering and Technology Education - -Part II, Proceedings of the 1999ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, June 1999. 5. Bernold, J.E., Spurlin, J.E., and Anson, C.M.. Understanding Our Students: A Longitudinal Study of Success and Failure in Engineering with Implications for Increased Retention, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 96, No. 3, pp. 263-274, 2007. 6. Felder, R.M., Felder, G.N. and Dietz, E.J., The Effects of Personality Type on Engineering Student Performance and Attitudes, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol.91, No.1, pp. 3-17, 2002. 7. Kam, A.H., Chonh, H.P., Ram, R. and Goh, C.H., Personality Type, Learning Modalities and Academic Performance in Undergraduate Engineering, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning (ICTL), PutraJaya, Malaysia, 2007. 8. Madill, J.W., The Effects of Motivational Modes and Personality Types upon Academic Performance, IEEE Transactions on Education, VOL. E-18, NO. 3, pp. 144-148, 1975. 9. McCaulley, M.H., Godleski, E.S., Yokomoto, C.F., Harrisberger, L., and Sloan, E.D., Applications of Psychological Type in Engineering Education, Engineering Education, Vol. 73, pp. 394-400, 1983. 10. O Brien, T.P., Bernold L.E. and Akroyd D., Myers-Briggs Type Indicator and Academic Achievement in Engineering Education, International Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 14, pp. 311-315, 1998. 11. Ooi, K.K., Goh, C.H., and Beh, Y.H., Personality Type and Academic Performance of Undergraduates majoring in Engineering and Accounting, Proceedings of the 1st International Conference on Teaching and Learning (ICTL), PutraJaya, Malaysia, 2007. 12. Prieto, J. E., Discovering the Relationship between Personality Type and Predicted Academic Success (Dissertation), East Carolina University, Greenville, NC, 2005. 13. Rosati, P., Students psychological type and success in different engineering programs, Frontiers in Education Conference, Proceedings of the 27th Annual Conference, Teaching and Learning in an Era of Change, vol. 2, pp.781-784, 1997. 14. Rosati, P., Psychological Types of Canadian Engineering Students, Journal of Psychological Type, Vol. 41, pp. 33-37, 1997. 15. StrengthsQuest Gallup Inc. 2010. [cited 2011 March 1]. Available from: http://www.strengthsquest.com 16. Buckingham, M., Go Put Your Strengths to Work, New York, NY: Free Press, 2007. 17. Hodges, T.D. and Harter, J.K., A Review of the Theory and Research Underlying the StrengthsQuest Program for Students, Princeton, NJ: The Gallup Organization, 2004. 18. Jackson, N.F and Magun-Jackson, S., Improve Your Strengths and Manage Your Weaknesses: Using the StrengthsFinder Profile in Team Development, Proceedings of the 2003 ASEE Annual Conference & Exposition, Portland, Oregon, June 2005. 19. Seligman, M.E., Steen, T.A., Positive Psychology Progress Empirical Validation of Interventions, American Psychologist, Vol. 60, No.5, pp. 416-421, July-August, 2005. 20. Veenstra, C.P., Dey, E.L., Herrin, G.D., Is Modeling of Freshman Engineering Success Different from Modeling of Non-Engineering Success, Journal of Engineering Education, Vol. 97, No. 4, pp.467-479, 2008. 21. Ethical Review of Research with Human Participants C5052. 2010. [cited 2011March 1]. Available from: http://www.blind.ca/web/services/board_gov/about/detailspage.cfm?id=1030

22. Keirsey, D., and Bates, M., Please Understand Me: Character and Temperament Types. Del Mar, California: Prometheus Nemesis, 1984. 23. CliftonStrengthsFinder Blog, [cited 1012 Jan. 5]. Available from: http://cliftonstrengthsfinder.blogspot.com/2007/03/building-strong-teams-using-4-domains.html 24. Rath, T., and Conchie, B. StrengthsFinder 2.0: Strengths Based Leadership, New York, NY: Gallup Press, 2007. 25. "Myers-Briggs Type Indicator" Wikipedia: The Free Encyclopedia. Wikimedia Foundation, Inc. 22 July 2004. [cited 2012 Jan. 5]. Available from : http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/myers-briggs_type_indicator 26. The Myers-Briggs Foundation, [cited 2012, March 12]. Available from: http://www.myersbriggs.org/my-mbti-personality-type/my-mbti-results/how-frequent-is-my-type.asp

APPENDIX Table 1A StrengthsFinder Categories and StrengthsFinder Themes (taken from Jackson & Magun-Jackson 18 ) Relating Themes (working with people) Impacting Themes (influencing people) Striving Themes (working hard) Thinking Themes (working smarter) Communication Command Achiever Analytical Empathy Competition Activator Arranger Inclusiveness Developer Adaptability Connectedness Individualization Maximizer Belief Context Positivity Woo Discipline Deliberative Relator Focus Fairness Responsibility Restorative Futuristic Self-Assurance Harmony Significance Ideation Input Intellection Learner Strategic Table 2A StrengthsFinder Domains and StrengthsFinder Themes Buckingham 16 Relating Themes (working with people) Impacting Themes (influencing people) Striving Themes (working hard) Thinking Themes (working smarter) Communication Command Achiever Analytical Empathy Competition Activator Arranger Harmony Developer Adaptability Consistency Includer Positivity Belief Connectedness Individualization Maximizer Discipline Context Relator Woo Focus Deliberative Responsibility Restorative Futuristic Self-Assurance Ideation Significance Input Intellection Learner Strategic

Table 3A StrengthsFinder Leadership Domains and StrengthsFinder Themes Rath and Conchie 24 Relationship Building Influencing Executing Strategic Thinking Adaptability Activator Achiever Analytical Developer Command Arranger Context Connectedness Communication Belief Futuristic Empathy Competition Consistency Ideation Harmony Maximizer Deliberative Input Includer Self- Assurance Discipline Intellection Individualization Significance Focus Learner Positivity Responsibility Strategic Relator Restorative Table 4A Wikipedia estimate of MBTI types in the general U.S. population 26 ISTJ 11 14% 11.6% ISTP 4 6% 5.4% ESTP 4 5% 4.3% ESTJ 8 12% 8.7% ST 30.0% SJ 46.4% ISFJ 9 14% 13.8% ISFP 5 9 % 8.8% ESFP 4 9% 8.5% ESFJ 9 13% 12.3% SF 43.4% SP 27.0% INFJ 1 3% 1.5% INFP 4 5% 4.4% ENFP 6 8% 8.1% ENFJ 2 5% 2.4% NF 16.4% INTJ 2 4% 2.1% INTP 3 5% 3.3% ENTP 2 5% 3.2% ENTJ 2 5% 1.8% NT 10.4% IJ 29.0% IP 21.9% EP 24.1% EJ 25.2% Totals Totals